Action: Engage landowners and other volunteers to manage land for amphibians

Key messages

Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Estonia and Taiwan found that habitat management with participation of volunteers increased natterjack toad and Taipei frog populations.

One controlled study in Mexico found that engaging landowners in aquatic habitat management increased axolotl weight.

Six studies in Estonia, the USA and UK found that between eight and 41,000 volunteers were engaged in aquatic and terrestrial habitat restoration programmes for amphibians. Individual programmes restored up to 1,023 ponds or over 11,500 km2 of habitat.

Background information and definitions

Only 11.5 % of the world’s land surface is protected (Rodrigues et al. 2004). This means that it is vital to engage effectively with landowners so that they manage their land in ways that help to maintain amphibian populations. Volunteers can make a valuable contribution to the management of habitats for amphibians, on private and public land. In some cases the long-term success of habitat management can depend on the involvement of local people.

As well as the direct effects from habitat restoration, volunteer programmes help raise awareness about amphibians and the threats that they face. For example, a study found that participants with high levels of engagement in conservation projects learned more (Evely et al. 2011). For interventions that involve engaging volunteers to help manage or monitor amphibian populations see ‘Threat: Transportation and service corridors – Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads’ and ‘Education and awareness raising – Engage volunteers to collect amphibian data’.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

1

A replicated, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 of three coastal meadows in Estonia (Rannap 2004) found that habitat restoration with participation from 200 volunteers resulted in increased numbers of natterjack toads Bufo calamita on one island and a halt in the decline of the species on the other two islands. In 2001–2004, habitats were restored with the help of 200 volunteers during 14 work camps. Restoration included reed and scrub removal, mowing (cuttings removed) and implementation of grazing where it had ceased. Sixty-six breeding ponds and natural depressions were cleaned, deepened and restored. The project also involved educational and informational activities.

2

A before-and-after study in 1999–2006 of a water lily paddy field in Taipei County, Taiwan (Lin et al. 2008) found that participation from the local community resulted in a doubling of a population of Taipei frogs Rana taipehensis. Habitat management by the community, along with the halting of herbicide and pesticide use by providing financial incentives to a farmer, resulted in a significant population increase (from 28 to 85). Habitat-improvement work including cutting weeds in the field was undertaken with participation from a local school and the Tse-Xing Organic Agriculture Foundation. Community-education programmes about wetland conservation were also carried out in the area.

3

A study in 2008 of a partnership programme in the USA (Milmoe 2008) found that since establishment the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program supported over 41,000 private landowners and developed partnerships with over 3,000 nationwide organizations to restore huge areas of habitat. Working together, partners have restored and enhanced 324,000 ha of wetlands, 800,000 ha of uplands and 10,500 km of stream habitat. Data were not provided to determine the effect on target species. The programme run by the US Fish and Wildlife Service was a voluntary habitat restoration programme. It provided technical and financial assistance to private landowners to support the habitat needs of species of conservation concern. Projects included creating and restoring ponds and wetlands for the Puerto Rican crested toad Peltophryne lemur, chiricahua leopard frog Lithobates chiricahuensis and the California red-legged frog Rana draytonii.

4

A study in 2008 of a pond restoration project within pasture in California, USA (Symonds 2008) found that eight livestock ponds had been restored by ranchers with more restorations planned. To encourage participation, regulatory agencies developed a coordinated permit for pond restorations. The new system enabled ranchers to go to one, rather than up to six, agencies to obtain permits and funding for pond and other management projects. The permit provided guidance on wildlife-friendly pond design and management. Ranchers who participated in the programme were given assurances that they would not encounter extra regulatory obligations under the Endangered Species Act if they restored and maintained ponds to benefit California red-legged frog Rana draytonii and California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense.

5

A controlled study in 2009 of axolotls Ambystoma mexicanum in canals through agricultural land in Xochimilco, Mexico (Valiente et al. 2010) found that filters to improve water quality and exclude competitive fish installed with participation of landowners resulted in increased weight gain of axolotls. Only four of 12 previously marked axolotls were recaptured; however, their weight had increased by 16%. Weight gain was greater than that of axolotls in control colonies over the same period. Farmers benefited from better-quality farm products as a result of improved water quality and from the protection of traditional agricultural practices. In 2009, with participation from farmers, a canal used as a refuge by axolotls was isolated from the main system using filters made of wood. Filters excluded fish and improved water quality.

6

A study in 2010 of landowner agreements to manage habitats for amphibians in California, USA (Kuyper 2011) found that eight ranchers and a Municipal Utility District enrolled in 30-year agreements. The eight ranchers managed over 4,000 ha and the Municipal Utility District 8,000 ha of habitat for two amphibians of conservation concern, the California red-legged frog Rana draytonii and the California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. Data were not provided to determine the effect on target species. Agreements were made between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and private landowners, with landowners agreeing to carry out management activities for the benefit of priority conservation species. Management included maintenance of stock ponds and surrounding uplands and bullfrog and fish removal. At the end of the agreement landowners were authorized to cease management and return their property to its original condition.

7

A study in 2012 of a Houston toad Anaxyrus houstonensis project in Texas, USA (Crump 2012) found that landowners attended a workshop and became involved in habitat restoration and protection. Over 200 landowners attended a workshop on wildlife, woodlands and drought. At least 25 landowners (2,000 ha) expressed interest in the project and participated in some form of restoration and stewardship effort for toad habitat. In 2012, a workshop was hosted for landowners, who owned the majority of remaining habitat for the toads. Topics included forest resiliency, wildlife management, Houston toad ecology and landowner cost-share and assistance programmes.

8

A study in 2012 of the Million Ponds Project in England and Wales, UK (Million Ponds Project 2012) found that in 2008–2012 the project team worked with landowners and managers to create 1,023 ponds for rare and declining species. Over 60 organizations were involved and more than 1,016 people were trained in pond creation at 57 events. The aim of the 50-year initiative, started in 2008, was to change attitudes so that pond creation becomes a routine activity within land management. Pond creation and management training courses were provided to partner and non-partner organizations. Over 50 factsheets were produced as part of an online toolkit and funding for pond creation was also provided.

Related Actions

Download reference details

This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.

Please select your preferred method below.

Text (full)Text (references only)RIS

Submit additional evidence

Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.

Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.

Fields with * are required.

Name *

Affiliation *

Email *

Message *

Attach files You may submit up to three additional files

File 1

File 2

File 3

Verification Code

Effectiveness

An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Harms

An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Certainty

An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Overall Effectiveness Category

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.